Difference between revisions of "Mystery at the Malon/2/he"
m |
m |
||
Line 34: | Line 34: | ||
<subopinion name="">ציפורה התעכבה בגלל המסע | <subopinion name="">ציפורה התעכבה בגלל המסע | ||
<p>משה לא היה נוכח במלון, וציפורה נשאה באחריות מלאה למאורע כולו. גם עמדה זו אינה מסבירה את הצורך בעונש כל כך דרמטי.</p> | <p>משה לא היה נוכח במלון, וציפורה נשאה באחריות מלאה למאורע כולו. גם עמדה זו אינה מסבירה את הצורך בעונש כל כך דרמטי.</p> | ||
− | <mekorot><multilink><a href="IbnJanach" data-aht="source">ר' סעדיה גאון</a><a href="IbnJanach" data-aht="source">רס"ג מובא בר' יונה אבן ג'נאח ספר השורשים "שלח"</a><a href="RAvrahamShemot4-24" data-aht="source">רס"ג מובא בר' אברהם בן הרמב"ם שמות ד':כ"ד</a><a href="RAvrahamShemot18-2" data-aht="source">רס"ג מובא בר' אברהם בן הרמב"ם שמות י"ח:ב'</a><a href="R. Saadia Gaon" data-aht="parshan">אודות ר' סעדיה גאון</a></multilink>,</ | + | <mekorot><multilink><a href="IbnJanach" data-aht="source">ר' סעדיה גאון</a><a href="IbnJanach" data-aht="source">רס"ג מובא בר' יונה אבן ג'נאח ספר השורשים "שלח"</a><a href="RAvrahamShemot4-24" data-aht="source">רס"ג מובא בר' אברהם בן הרמב"ם שמות ד':כ"ד</a><a href="RAvrahamShemot18-2" data-aht="source">רס"ג מובא בר' אברהם בן הרמב"ם שמות י"ח:ב'</a><a href="R. Saadia Gaon" data-aht="parshan">אודות ר' סעדיה גאון</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="RChananel" data-aht="source">ר' חננאל</a><a href="RChananelYoma85b" data-aht="source">ר' חננאל סוטה פ"ה:</a><a href="RChananel" data-aht="source">ר' חננאל מובא בר' בחיי שמות ד':כ"ד</a><a href="R. Chananel b. Chushiel" data-aht="parshan">אודות ר' חננאל בן חושיאל</a></multilink></mekorot> |
− | + | <point><b>האם משה חטא?</b> גישה זו נמנעת מלייחס חטא או אשמה כלשהי למשה.</point> | |
− | <point><b> | + | <point><b>"אַחַר שִׁלּוּחֶיהָ" ומי היה נוכח במקום הלינה?</b> ר' סעדיה מסביר שבשלב כלשהו לאחר היציאה למצרים, משה החליט לשלוח את ציפורה יחד עם ילדיהם חזרה לביתם במדין בזמן שהוא המשיך לבדו לכיוון מצרים. לניתוח נוסף, ראה מתי ציפורה חזרה למדיין. לכן, רק ציפורה ובניה היו נוכחים במלון.</point> |
− | <point><b> | + | <point><b>הקשר</b> – לדעת ר' סעדיה, שמות ד':כ' משמש כפתיחה כפולה, שמספרת לקורא לאיזה כיוון הלכו משה וציפורה, כל אחד לחוד. המקרא אז ממשיך בצורת מסך מפוצל, ראשית הוא מספר על הנבואה שהתקבלה על ידי משה בזמן שיצא למשימתו, ולאחר מכן מתייחס לאירוע שקרה בו זמנית לציפורה במלון.</point> |
− | <point><b> | + | <point><b>איזה בן לא נימול ומדוע לא?</b> אליעזר שזה עתה נולד הוא הבן הערל. לדעת ר' סעדיה, ציפורה היתה רשלנית או שחשבה שזה יכול לחכות עד שתחזור לביתה.</point> |
− | <point><b>"וַיִּפְגְּשֵׁהוּ ה'‏"</b> – | + | <point><b>"וַיִּפְגְּשֵׁהוּ ה'‏"</b> – ר' סעדיה ור' חננאל מסבירים שניהם שהיה זה מלאך, כאשר ר' חננאל מציע כמו המדרש לעיל שהמלאך היה בדמות נחש ובלע את התינוק עד למקום המילה.</point> |
− | <point><b>"וַיְבַקֵּשׁ הֲמִיתוֹ" – | + | <point><b>"וַיְבַקֵּשׁ הֲמִיתוֹ" – מי כמעט מת?</b> מכיוון שמשה לא נוכח, זה יכול להיות רק בנו (אליעזר) שנמצא בסכנה. דעה זו אם כן מתחמקת מהשאלה מדוע שה' יסכן את שליחו.</point> |
− | <point><b> | + | <point><b>עונש לא מידתי?</b> It is difficult to understand why Hashem would want to kill Moshe's baby merely because his circumcision had been slightly delayed.</point> |
− | <point><b> | + | <point><b>מילה היא הפתרון</b> – As circumcision was the cause of the situation, it was also the obvious way to solve the problem.</point> |
− | <point><b> | + | <point><b>מדוע ציפורה ולא משה?</b> One readily understands that Zipporah performs the circumcision as Moshe was not there. In fact, this is R. Chananel's point of departure.</point> |
− | <point><b> | + | <point><b>איך ציפורה ידעה מהו הפתרון?</b> According to R. Saadia, Zipporah received heavenly inspiration. For R. Chananel who adapts the Midrash that a snake was swallowing the baby until the point of his circumcision, this provided a clear signal as to the nature of the problem.</point> |
− | <point><b>"וַתַּגַּע לְרַגְלָיו" – | + | <point><b>"וַתַּגַּע לְרַגְלָיו" – רגליו של מי?</b> This approach could maintain that it was the baby's legs, but R. Saadia may understand that Zipporah presented the foreskin in front of the angel.</point> |
<point><b>"חֲתַן דָּמִים / לַמּוּלֹת"</b> – R. Saadia and R. Chananel explain that Zipporah is referring to the baby who was almost killed.</point> | <point><b>"חֲתַן דָּמִים / לַמּוּלֹת"</b> – R. Saadia and R. Chananel explain that Zipporah is referring to the baby who was almost killed.</point> | ||
</subopinion> | </subopinion> | ||
<subopinion name="">ברית עם יתרו שלא למול | <subopinion name="">ברית עם יתרו שלא למול | ||
<p>כדי שיוכל לשאת את ציפורה, משה ערך הסכם קדם-נישואי הזוי עם יתרו שאחד מבניו "יהיה מיועד לעבודה זרה".</p> | <p>כדי שיוכל לשאת את ציפורה, משה ערך הסכם קדם-נישואי הזוי עם יתרו שאחד מבניו "יהיה מיועד לעבודה זרה".</p> | ||
− | <mekorot>R. Elazar HaModai in <multilink><a href="MekhiltaAmalek1" data-aht="source">Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael</a><a href="MekhiltaAmalek1" data-aht="source">Yitro Amalek 1</a><a href="Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael" data-aht="parshan">About the Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael</a></multilink>, | + | <mekorot>R. Elazar HaModai in <multilink><a href="MekhiltaAmalek1" data-aht="source">Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael</a><a href="MekhiltaAmalek1" data-aht="source">Yitro Amalek 1</a><a href="Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael" data-aht="parshan">About the Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="PsJShemot4-24" data-aht="source">Targum Pseudo-Jonathan</a><a href="PsJShemot4-24" data-aht="source">Shemot 4:24-26</a><a href="Targum Pseudo-Jonathan" data-aht="parshan">About Targum Pseudo-Jonathan</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="Aggadah18-3" data-aht="source">Midrash Aggadah (Buber)</a><a href="Aggadah18-3" data-aht="source">Shemot 18:3</a><a href="Midrash Aggadah (Buber)" data-aht="parshan">About Midrash Aggadah (Buber)</a></multilink>,<fn>See also the דבר אחר in <a href="Aggadah4-24" data-aht="source">Midrash Aggadah (Buber) Shemot 4:24</a>.</fn> <multilink><a href="MidrashVayosha" data-aht="source">Midrash Vayosha</a><a href="MidrashVayosha" data-aht="source">Otzar HaMidrashim (Eisenstein p.150)</a><a href="Midrash Vayosha" data-aht="parshan">About Midrash Vayosha</a></multilink></mekorot> |
− | + | <point><b>חטאו של משה ועונש מידתי</b> – By providing a broader backdrop for the lack of circumcision and amplifying its problematic ramifications, this approach makes the severity of the potential punishment more understandable.</point> | |
− | + | <point><b>כיצד היה יכול משה לעשות כזה הסכם?</b> <multilink><a href="IbnEzraShemotShort4-24" data-aht="source">Ibn Ezra</a><a href="IbnEzraShemotShort4-24" data-aht="source">Short Commentary Shemot 4:25</a><a href="R. Avraham ibn Ezra" data-aht="parshan">About R. Avraham ibn Ezra</a></multilink> dismisses this entire approach, claiming that it is impossible that Moshe Rabbeinu would have agreed to such terms "ונביא לא יעשה כן. ואף כי נביא הנביאים". Others disagree, attempting to either defend or at least understand Moshe's actions: | |
− | |||
− | <point><b> | ||
− | <point><b> | ||
<ul> | <ul> | ||
<li>Midrash Vayosha says that Moshe actually had no intention of keeping his side of the bargain. Thus, as soon as Eliezer was born, he left for Egypt, planning to circumcise the boy there.<fn>The Tur also defends Moshe, but he suggests that Moshe only agreed since he knew that he would eventually bring Yitro to forsake idolatry. For more on whether and when Yitro abandoned idolatry, see <a href="Yitro – Religious Identity" data-aht="page">Yitro's Religious Identity</a>.</fn></li> | <li>Midrash Vayosha says that Moshe actually had no intention of keeping his side of the bargain. Thus, as soon as Eliezer was born, he left for Egypt, planning to circumcise the boy there.<fn>The Tur also defends Moshe, but he suggests that Moshe only agreed since he knew that he would eventually bring Yitro to forsake idolatry. For more on whether and when Yitro abandoned idolatry, see <a href="Yitro – Religious Identity" data-aht="page">Yitro's Religious Identity</a>.</fn></li> | ||
Line 61: | Line 58: | ||
<li>One must also consider the possibility that at this stage of our story, having grown up in Paroh's palace, Moshe's Jewish identity was not fully developed, and he had no qualms about accepting Yitro's request. For more, see <a href="Moshe" data-aht="page">Moshe's Character</a>.<fn>For the opposite possibility, that Moshe's delay really stemmed from his desire to preserve the baby's Jewish identity, see R. Yoel Bin-Nun's article, ‏"מאבק הזהות של משה – איזה בן לא נמול ומדוע," מגדים נ (תשס"ט):21-38. See also <a href="TzitzEliezer" data-aht="source">Shut Tzitz Eliezer 18:53</a> who cites the נחלת בנימין's fascinating read of the Midrash, which parallels that of the Mirkevet HaMishneh on the Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael. They suggest that though Moshe actually was observant, Yitro, a recent convert, was suspicious of the "Egyptian" stranger, thinking him to be an idolater. In his desire that his grandchildren worship Hashem, he thus made him swear that though one son (Moshe's!) might be for idolatry, the other son (Yitro's) would be for Hashem. Only after swearing ("וַיּוֹאֶל מֹשֶׁה"), did Yitro believe Moshe's insistence that he was in fact God-fearing. This reading raises important questions of the nature of both Moshe and Yitro's religiosity. For further discussions, see <a href="Moshe" data-aht="page">Moshe's Character</a>, <a href="Moshe's Family Life" data-aht="page">Moshe and Zipporah's Marriage</a> (regarding the debate between R. Saadia and R. Mubashir HaLevi), and <a href="Yitro – Religious Identity" data-aht="page">Yitro's Religious Identity</a>. See also <a href="Yosef's Character" data-aht="page">Yosef's Character</a> for parallel questions in understanding the Yosef narratives.</fn></li> | <li>One must also consider the possibility that at this stage of our story, having grown up in Paroh's palace, Moshe's Jewish identity was not fully developed, and he had no qualms about accepting Yitro's request. For more, see <a href="Moshe" data-aht="page">Moshe's Character</a>.<fn>For the opposite possibility, that Moshe's delay really stemmed from his desire to preserve the baby's Jewish identity, see R. Yoel Bin-Nun's article, ‏"מאבק הזהות של משה – איזה בן לא נמול ומדוע," מגדים נ (תשס"ט):21-38. See also <a href="TzitzEliezer" data-aht="source">Shut Tzitz Eliezer 18:53</a> who cites the נחלת בנימין's fascinating read of the Midrash, which parallels that of the Mirkevet HaMishneh on the Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael. They suggest that though Moshe actually was observant, Yitro, a recent convert, was suspicious of the "Egyptian" stranger, thinking him to be an idolater. In his desire that his grandchildren worship Hashem, he thus made him swear that though one son (Moshe's!) might be for idolatry, the other son (Yitro's) would be for Hashem. Only after swearing ("וַיּוֹאֶל מֹשֶׁה"), did Yitro believe Moshe's insistence that he was in fact God-fearing. This reading raises important questions of the nature of both Moshe and Yitro's religiosity. For further discussions, see <a href="Moshe" data-aht="page">Moshe's Character</a>, <a href="Moshe's Family Life" data-aht="page">Moshe and Zipporah's Marriage</a> (regarding the debate between R. Saadia and R. Mubashir HaLevi), and <a href="Yitro – Religious Identity" data-aht="page">Yitro's Religious Identity</a>. See also <a href="Yosef's Character" data-aht="page">Yosef's Character</a> for parallel questions in understanding the Yosef narratives.</fn></li> | ||
</ul></point> | </ul></point> | ||
− | <point><b> | + | <point><b>ביסוס מקראי</b> – One of the main disadvantages of this approach is that there is no mention of any such agreement in the book of Shemot. Nonetheless, there are a number of possible hints which may have served the Midrashim as textual hooks for the existence of such a contract.<fn>The immediate context of verses 23-24 may have also influenced the Midrash – see below.</fn> These include: |
− | + | <ul> | |
− | + | <li>R. Elazar HaModai notes that the Biblical derivation of Gershom's name ("גֵּר הָיִיתִי בְּאֶרֶץ נָכְרִיָּה") alludes to being "foreign to God."</li> | |
− | + | <li>R. Elazar HaModai understands "וַיּוֹאֶל מֹשֶׁה לָשֶׁבֶת אֶת הָאִישׁ" in Shemot 2:21 as a language of oath-taking.</li> | |
− | + | <li>Chazal's identification of the idolatrous priest of Shofetim 18:20 as Moshe's grandson.<fn>See the Tur Shemot 2:16. For a discussion of the parallels which serve to connect the two stories, see <a href="$">Shofetim 17-18</a>.</fn></li> | |
− | + | </ul></point> | |
− | <point><b> | + | <point><b>הקשר</b> – It is possible that the proximity of verses 23-24 to our story influenced the development of the original Midrashic motif. It might have understood the second person direct speech of "וָאֹמַר אֵלֶיךָ" in verse 23 as Hashem turning to speak to Moshe (rather than Paroh who is not present), and saying, "I have told you to send your son to worship me (i.e. circumcise him) but you have refused; I will therefore kill your firstborn son."<fn>See R. Yosef Kimchi below, who has a similar read of the verses but with a different understanding of the sin, and see <multilink><a href="IbnEzraShemotLong4-23" data-aht="source">Ibn Ezra</a><a href="IbnEzraShemotLong4-23" data-aht="source">Long Commentary Shemot 4:23</a><a href="R. Avraham ibn Ezra" data-aht="parshan">About R. Avraham ibn Ezra</a></multilink>'s critique of those who say that Hashem is speaking to Moshe in this verse. |
<p>Michael Hochstein offered an interesting variation of this reconstruction, suggesting that perhaps the words "וַתְּמָאֵן לְשַׁלְּחוֹ" are a third person feminine form (rather than a second person masculine) and refer to Zipporah who, being an idolater like her father, refused to circumcise her son. Accordingly, the story of Moshe's pact with Yitro and Zipporah has a textual basis, and it is logical why Zipporah is the one to do the circumcision.</p> | <p>Michael Hochstein offered an interesting variation of this reconstruction, suggesting that perhaps the words "וַתְּמָאֵן לְשַׁלְּחוֹ" are a third person feminine form (rather than a second person masculine) and refer to Zipporah who, being an idolater like her father, refused to circumcise her son. Accordingly, the story of Moshe's pact with Yitro and Zipporah has a textual basis, and it is logical why Zipporah is the one to do the circumcision.</p> | ||
<p>The standard interpretation of verse 23 is that it discusses warning Paroh of the tenth plague. However, this understanding encounters some difficulties: First, the words "וָאֹמַר אֵלֶיךָ" seem redundant after verse 23 states "‏כֹּה אָמַר ה'‏" (cf. Rashi and Ibn Ezra). Additionally, the whole warning regarding Paroh's refusal and the Plague of the Firstborn seems premature as Paroh has not even been asked, let alone refused, to send anyone (cf. R. Saadia's attempt to obviate this problem with the translation in his Tafsir). The alternatives above are able to circumvent these problems.</p></fn> "בִּנְךָ בְּכֹרֶךָ" would then refer to Moshe's firstborn son, Gershom.</point> | <p>The standard interpretation of verse 23 is that it discusses warning Paroh of the tenth plague. However, this understanding encounters some difficulties: First, the words "וָאֹמַר אֵלֶיךָ" seem redundant after verse 23 states "‏כֹּה אָמַר ה'‏" (cf. Rashi and Ibn Ezra). Additionally, the whole warning regarding Paroh's refusal and the Plague of the Firstborn seems premature as Paroh has not even been asked, let alone refused, to send anyone (cf. R. Saadia's attempt to obviate this problem with the translation in his Tafsir). The alternatives above are able to circumvent these problems.</p></fn> "בִּנְךָ בְּכֹרֶךָ" would then refer to Moshe's firstborn son, Gershom.</point> | ||
− | <point><b> | + | <point><b>איזה בן לא נימול ומדוע לא?</b><ul> |
− | + | <li>Gershom – R. Elazar HaModai in the Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan.<fn>In Neofiti and the Targumic fragments from the Genizah the son is not identified.</fn> R. Elazar HaModai's choice of Gershom rather than Eliezer appears to be motivated by the Torah's derivations of the two names.<fn>Eliezer's name which contains an explicit reference to Hashem was logically chosen as the circumcised one, while Gershom, named because "גֵּר הָיִיתִי בְּאֶרֶץ נָכְרִיָּה", was the "stranger to God".</fn> Additionally, Eliezer has not yet been mentioned explicitly,<fn>His name is mentioned for the first time in Shemot 18:4, although he may have been born already at the time of the episode at the inn – see below.</fn> and the context of "בִּנְךָ בְּכֹרֶךָ" may tip the scales toward Gershom.</li> | |
− | + | <li>Eliezer – Midrash Aggadah and Midrash Vayosha.<fn>See also the opinion cited by <multilink><a href="IbnEzraShemotShort4-24" data-aht="source">Ibn Ezra</a><a href="IbnEzraShemotShort4-24" data-aht="source">Short Commentary Shemot 4:25</a><a href="R. Avraham ibn Ezra" data-aht="parshan">About R. Avraham ibn Ezra</a></multilink>.</fn> Their choice of Eliezer explains why Moshe was punished only at the inn, and not already at the time of Gershom's birth.<fn>As there are simpler ways of explaining why Eliezer was not yet circumcised, it is likely that the original Midrashic motif contained Gershom. Only at a later stage was this motif synthesized with the approaches above which focused on Eliezer.</fn></li> | |
− | + | </ul></point> | |
− | <point><b> | + | <point><b>מי היה נוכח במלון?</b> If the son was Eliezer, then Moshe and his entire family were present. However, if the son was Gershom, it is possible that Eliezer was not yet born.<fn>See <multilink><a href="RambanShemot4-19" data-aht="source">Ramban</a><a href="RambanShemot4-19" data-aht="source">Shemot 4:20</a><a href="Ramban" data-aht="parshan">About R. Moshe Nachmanides</a></multilink> who suggests that the plural form of "בָּנָיו" in Shemot 4:20 is not conclusive, comparing it to a similar plural in Bemidbar 26:8 where there is only one son. Ramban raises various options as to when Zipporah became pregnant with Eliezer, either before the journey, on the way back, or in Egypt. For more, see <a href="When Did Zipporah Return to Midyan" data-aht="page">When Did Zipporah Return to Midyan</a>.</fn></point> |
<point><b>"וַיִּפְגְּשֵׁהוּ ה'‏"</b> – Most of these sources suggest that Hashem sent an angel to attack Moshe. Midrash Vayosha goes a step further and identifies the angel as a "שטן" in the guise of a snake.<fn>See the discussion above of these possibilities.</fn></point> | <point><b>"וַיִּפְגְּשֵׁהוּ ה'‏"</b> – Most of these sources suggest that Hashem sent an angel to attack Moshe. Midrash Vayosha goes a step further and identifies the angel as a "שטן" in the guise of a snake.<fn>See the discussion above of these possibilities.</fn></point> | ||
− | <point><b>"וַיְבַקֵּשׁ הֲמִיתוֹ" – | + | <point><b>"וַיְבַקֵּשׁ הֲמִיתוֹ" – מי כמעט מת?</b> Most of these sources maintain that Moshe was endangered, presumably because he was the one who sinned. However, if "הִנֵּה אָנֹכִי הֹרֵג אֶת בִּנְךָ בְּכֹרֶךָ" is directed at Moshe, it is Moshe's son who is in danger.</point> |
− | <point><b> | + | <point><b>מילה היא הפתרון</b> – Since the lack of circumcision is the problem, it is the obvious way to rectify the situation.</point> |
− | <point><b> | + | <point><b>מדוע ציפורה ולא משה?</b> If Moshe was being attacked, he was unavailable. If the son was being attacked, Zipporah may have performed the circumcision because she or her father was the one who had initially refused to have him circumcised.<fn>See <multilink><a href="ToledotYitzchakShemot4-24" data-aht="source">Toledot Yitzchak</a><a href="ToledotYitzchakShemot4-24" data-aht="source">Shemot 4:24-25</a><a href="R. Yitzchak Karo" data-aht="parshan">About R. Yitzchak Karo</a></multilink> who answers similarly.</fn></point> |
− | <point><b> | + | <point><b>איך ציפורה ידעה מהו הפתרון?</b> If "וָאֹמַר אֵלֶיךָ שַׁלַּח אֶת בְּנִי וְיַעַבְדֵנִי..." in verse 23 is directed at Moshe, Hashem stated explicitly what was imperiling Moshe's life. Alternatively, Midrash Vayosha adopts the motif of R. Yehuda b. Bizna that Moshe was being swallowed until the place of his circumcision, and Zipporah thus was able to intuit the cause of the problem.</point> |
− | <point><b>"וַתַּגַּע לְרַגְלָיו" – | + | <point><b>"וַתַּגַּע לְרַגְלָיו" – רגליו של מי?</b> Targum Pseudo-Jonathan understands that Zipporah is presenting the foreskin as a penance offering in front of the angel's legs. Midrash Vayosha, on the other hand, cannot explain it as the Satan-snake's legs, as snakes do not have legs. It thus depicts Zipporah sprinkling blood on Moshe's legs,<fn>Midrash Vayosha may understand "לְרַגְלָיו" as a euphemism for Moshe's genitals (the point past which the Satan-snake was not able to swallow – "לא היה יכול <b>ליגע</b>"). Cf. R"Y Kimchi and <multilink><a href="ChizkuniShemot4-24" data-aht="source">Chizkuni</a><a href="ChizkuniShemot4-24" data-aht="source">Shemot 4:25</a><a href="Chizkuni" data-aht="parshan">About R. Chizkiyah b. Manoach</a></multilink>.</fn> perhaps as protection.<fn>See <multilink><a href="LekachTovShemot4-25" data-aht="source">Lekach Tov</a><a href="LekachTovShemot4-25" data-aht="source">Shemot 4:25</a><a href="Lekach Tov" data-aht="parshan">About R. Toviah b. Eliezer</a></multilink>, Ibn Ezra below, <multilink><a href="ChizkuniShemot4-24" data-aht="source">Chizkuni</a><a href="ChizkuniShemot4-24" data-aht="source">Shemot 4:25</a><a href="Chizkuni" data-aht="parshan">About R. Chizkiyah b. Manoach</a></multilink>, and Ibn Kaspi below for the parallel to the Paschal blood on the doorposts.</fn></point> |
<point><b>"חֲתַן דָּמִים / לַמּוּלֹת"</b> – Targum Pseudo-Jonathan says that Zipporah was referring to Moshe, as he was the one endangered.</point> | <point><b>"חֲתַן דָּמִים / לַמּוּלֹת"</b> – Targum Pseudo-Jonathan says that Zipporah was referring to Moshe, as he was the one endangered.</point> | ||
</subopinion> | </subopinion> | ||
Line 87: | Line 84: | ||
<p>משה התמהמה בביצוע שליחותו לגאול את בני ישראל. על גישה זו להסביר איך מילת בנו של משה תיקנה את המצב.</p> | <p>משה התמהמה בביצוע שליחותו לגאול את בני ישראל. על גישה זו להסביר איך מילת בנו של משה תיקנה את המצב.</p> | ||
<mekorot><multilink><a href="Yelammedenu" data-aht="source">Midrash Yelammedenu</a><a href="Yelammedenu" data-aht="source">Genizah (Mann 102a)</a><a href="Yelammedenu" data-aht="parshan">About Midrash Yelammedenu</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="Aggadah4-24" data-aht="source">Midrash Aggadah (Buber)</a><a href="Aggadah4-24" data-aht="source">Shemot 4:24</a><a href="Midrash Aggadah (Buber)" data-aht="parshan">About Midrash Aggadah (Buber)</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="RashbamShemot4-24" data-aht="source">Rashbam</a><a href="RashbamShemot4-14" data-aht="source">Shemot 4:14</a><a href="RashbamShemot4-24" data-aht="source">Shemot 4:24-26</a><a href="Rashbam" data-aht="parshan">About R. Shemuel b. Meir</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="RYKimchi" data-aht="source">R. Yosef Kimchi</a><a href="RYKimchi" data-aht="source">Sefer HaGalui s.v. אז (p.68-69)</a><a href="R. Yosef Kimchi" data-aht="parshan">About R. Yosef Kimchi</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="IbnDaud" data-aht="source">R. Avraham Ibn Daud</a><a href="IbnDaud" data-aht="source">Sefer HaEmunah HaRamah, Maamar 3</a><a href="Avraham Ibn Daud" data-aht="parshan">About Avraham Ibn Daud</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="TzerorShemot4-24" data-aht="source">Tzeror HaMor</a><a href="TzerorShemot4-24" data-aht="source">Shemot 4:24-25</a><a href="R. Avraham Saba" data-aht="parshan">About R. Avraham Saba</a></multilink></mekorot> | <mekorot><multilink><a href="Yelammedenu" data-aht="source">Midrash Yelammedenu</a><a href="Yelammedenu" data-aht="source">Genizah (Mann 102a)</a><a href="Yelammedenu" data-aht="parshan">About Midrash Yelammedenu</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="Aggadah4-24" data-aht="source">Midrash Aggadah (Buber)</a><a href="Aggadah4-24" data-aht="source">Shemot 4:24</a><a href="Midrash Aggadah (Buber)" data-aht="parshan">About Midrash Aggadah (Buber)</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="RashbamShemot4-24" data-aht="source">Rashbam</a><a href="RashbamShemot4-14" data-aht="source">Shemot 4:14</a><a href="RashbamShemot4-24" data-aht="source">Shemot 4:24-26</a><a href="Rashbam" data-aht="parshan">About R. Shemuel b. Meir</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="RYKimchi" data-aht="source">R. Yosef Kimchi</a><a href="RYKimchi" data-aht="source">Sefer HaGalui s.v. אז (p.68-69)</a><a href="R. Yosef Kimchi" data-aht="parshan">About R. Yosef Kimchi</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="IbnDaud" data-aht="source">R. Avraham Ibn Daud</a><a href="IbnDaud" data-aht="source">Sefer HaEmunah HaRamah, Maamar 3</a><a href="Avraham Ibn Daud" data-aht="parshan">About Avraham Ibn Daud</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="TzerorShemot4-24" data-aht="source">Tzeror HaMor</a><a href="TzerorShemot4-24" data-aht="source">Shemot 4:24-25</a><a href="R. Avraham Saba" data-aht="parshan">About R. Avraham Saba</a></multilink></mekorot> | ||
− | <point><b> | + | <point><b>חטאו של משה</b> – These commentators suggest two possible infractions which constituted the delay: |
<ul> | <ul> | ||
<li>Lodging at the inn<fn>Cf. the opinion of R. Yosi above who also says that the problem is indicated in the words "וַיְהִי בַדֶּרֶךְ בַּמָּלוֹן". While R. Yosi understood that the lodging delayed the circumcision, these Midrashim maintain that it delayed Moshe's mission.</fn> – Midrash Yelammedenu and Midrash Aggadah (Buber) say that Moshe procrastinated by staying at the inn.<fn>Midrash Aggadah depicts Moshe literally vacillating between continuing his journey and entering the inn, uncertain whether the time of the redemption had really come. It is unclear if this Midrash is critical of Moshe. This depends on how one punctuates the text and whether one reads "כעס עליו הקדוש ברוך הוא" (like the printed text) or "יכעס עליו הקדוש ברוך הוא" (like the proposed emendation which would better fit the context).</fn> This approach likely understands "בַּמָּלוֹן" as an actual guest lodge and not just any place where Moshe pitched a tent for the night.<fn>See <a href="DIC$">מלון</a> and cf. Shadal Shemot 4:24 who disagrees.</fn></li> | <li>Lodging at the inn<fn>Cf. the opinion of R. Yosi above who also says that the problem is indicated in the words "וַיְהִי בַדֶּרֶךְ בַּמָּלוֹן". While R. Yosi understood that the lodging delayed the circumcision, these Midrashim maintain that it delayed Moshe's mission.</fn> – Midrash Yelammedenu and Midrash Aggadah (Buber) say that Moshe procrastinated by staying at the inn.<fn>Midrash Aggadah depicts Moshe literally vacillating between continuing his journey and entering the inn, uncertain whether the time of the redemption had really come. It is unclear if this Midrash is critical of Moshe. This depends on how one punctuates the text and whether one reads "כעס עליו הקדוש ברוך הוא" (like the printed text) or "יכעס עליו הקדוש ברוך הוא" (like the proposed emendation which would better fit the context).</fn> This approach likely understands "בַּמָּלוֹן" as an actual guest lodge and not just any place where Moshe pitched a tent for the night.<fn>See <a href="DIC$">מלון</a> and cf. Shadal Shemot 4:24 who disagrees.</fn></li> | ||
<li>Bringing his family with him to Egypt – Rashbam<fn>Rashbam explains that Hashem was already angered by Moshe's reluctance at the Burning Bush to undertake the mission, and that the consequences of the anger in 4:14 were felt only later (cf. Rashi there who identifies different ramifications). He compares the incident to the cases of Yaakov, Yonah, and Bilaam who are punished for trying to evade implementing Hashem's will.</fn> and the Tzeror HaMor suggest that Moshe taking his family caused unnecessary delay.<fn>R. Yosef Kimchi also speaks of general tarrying, but it is not clear if this is connected to Moshe bringing his family. He notes that the need for Hashem to tell Moshe again "לֵךְ שֻׁב מִצְרָיִם" indicates that Moshe was procrastinating.</fn></li> | <li>Bringing his family with him to Egypt – Rashbam<fn>Rashbam explains that Hashem was already angered by Moshe's reluctance at the Burning Bush to undertake the mission, and that the consequences of the anger in 4:14 were felt only later (cf. Rashi there who identifies different ramifications). He compares the incident to the cases of Yaakov, Yonah, and Bilaam who are punished for trying to evade implementing Hashem's will.</fn> and the Tzeror HaMor suggest that Moshe taking his family caused unnecessary delay.<fn>R. Yosef Kimchi also speaks of general tarrying, but it is not clear if this is connected to Moshe bringing his family. He notes that the need for Hashem to tell Moshe again "לֵךְ שֻׁב מִצְרָיִם" indicates that Moshe was procrastinating.</fn></li> | ||
</ul></point> | </ul></point> | ||
− | <point><b> | + | <point><b>עונש מידתי</b> – Hashem's reacted harshly because Moshe's action (or inaction) had consequences for the entire nation.<fn>R. Avraham Ibn Daud says that just as Paroh was punished for not releasing the people immediately, Moshe was punished for his delay.</fn> Hashem's attack was intended to send a message to Moshe to execute his mission in a timely manner.</point> |
− | <point><b> | + | <point><b>כיצד ברית המילה עזרה?</b> This approach encounters great difficulty in understanding the role of circumcision. |
<ul> | <ul> | ||
<li>According to Rashbam, the circumcision functioned as some form of sacrifice<fn>For an Ancient Near Eastern parallel, see the account of Philo of Byblos cited by Eusebius in Praeparatio Evangelica 1:10: "But on the occurrence of a pestilence and mortality, Kronos offers his only begotten son as a whole burnt-offering to his father Uranus, and circumcises himself, compelling his allies also to do the same."</fn> to appease the angel who was trying to kill Moshe.<fn>Rashbam on 4:26 adds that Zipporah understood that a delay in the circumcision had contributed to Moshe's punishment, but it is unclear whether this was merely Zipporah's understanding and how this should be reconciled with the sin of tarrying. There is a similar ambiguity in R"Y Kimchi's reconstruction of the story.</fn></li> | <li>According to Rashbam, the circumcision functioned as some form of sacrifice<fn>For an Ancient Near Eastern parallel, see the account of Philo of Byblos cited by Eusebius in Praeparatio Evangelica 1:10: "But on the occurrence of a pestilence and mortality, Kronos offers his only begotten son as a whole burnt-offering to his father Uranus, and circumcises himself, compelling his allies also to do the same."</fn> to appease the angel who was trying to kill Moshe.<fn>Rashbam on 4:26 adds that Zipporah understood that a delay in the circumcision had contributed to Moshe's punishment, but it is unclear whether this was merely Zipporah's understanding and how this should be reconciled with the sin of tarrying. There is a similar ambiguity in R"Y Kimchi's reconstruction of the story.</fn></li> | ||
Line 100: | Line 97: | ||
<li>Alternatively, Moshe's procrastination was a sign of his lack of identity with his Jewish brothers; performing the circumcision actively showed his connection to his people.<fn>Cf. the second approach in Midrash Yelammedenu that Moshe could not command the Israelites to circumcise, until his own sons were circumcised.</fn></li> | <li>Alternatively, Moshe's procrastination was a sign of his lack of identity with his Jewish brothers; performing the circumcision actively showed his connection to his people.<fn>Cf. the second approach in Midrash Yelammedenu that Moshe could not command the Israelites to circumcise, until his own sons were circumcised.</fn></li> | ||
</ul></point> | </ul></point> | ||
− | <point><b>"וַיְבַקֵּשׁ הֲמִיתוֹ" – | + | <point><b>"וַיְבַקֵּשׁ הֲמִיתוֹ" – מי כמעט מת?</b> According to most of these sources, the target of Hashem's wrath was Moshe as it was his sin.<fn>The Tzeror HaMor likely agrees, but according to him the danger does not incapacitate Moshe, and he is still able to proceed to Egypt. Alternatively, the Tzeror HaMor thinks that the son became ill, and Moshe departed for Egypt leaving Zipporah to tend to their ill son.</fn> However, R. Yosef Kimchi claims that Hashem came to kill Gershom.<fn>R. Avraham Ibn Daud concurs. See also below for R. Yosef Kimchi's rendering of "הִנֵּה אָנֹכִי הֹרֵג אֶת בִּנְךָ בְּכֹרֶךָ".</fn></point> |
− | <point><b> | + | <point><b>איזה בן לא נימול ומדוע לא?</b> Most of these commentators probably hold that Eliezer was the uncircumcised son who had just been born. R. Yosef Kimchi, though, combines this approach with the Midrash above, suggesting that a deal was made with Zipporah and her family not to circumcise Gershom.<fn>See below for the basis of his theory.</fn></point> |
− | <point><b> | + | <point><b>מדוע ציפורה ולא משה?</b> Those who hold that Moshe was endangered can say that he was incapacitated. R"Y Kimchi says that Zipporah was compensating for not previously allowing this son to be circumcised. According to Tzeror HaMor, as soon as Moshe became aware of Hashem's anger, he hurried to Egypt, leaving Zipporah behind to circumcise their son.<fn>The Tzeror HaMor proves from the fact that Zipporah performed the circumcision that Moshe was not there. Cf. R. Chananel above.</fn></point> |
− | <point><b> | + | <point><b>איך ציפורה ידעה מהו הפתרון?</b> According to R"Y Kimchi,<fn>Cf. R. Avraham Ibn Daud who says that Moshe's instructions reflected either a foreshadowing or foreknowledge of how the Israelites would be saved through the blood of the Paschal sacrifice.</fn> Moshe told her that the cause of the danger was that Gershom was uncircumcised. The Tzeror HaMor, who says that Moshe was not present, would probably simply maintain that the baby was eight days old.</point> |
− | <point><b>"וַתַּגַּע לְרַגְלָיו" – | + | <point><b>"וַתַּגַּע לְרַגְלָיו" – רגליו של מי?</b><ul> |
− | + | <li>Moshe's – Rashbam says that Zipporah touched the foreskin to Moshe's feet as a way of appeasing the angel.<fn>Since according to Rashbam this was a sacrificial act, one would have expected that Zipporah would have placed the foreskin in front of the angel's legs – cf. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan above. Rashbam rejects this possibility, but only because he is unsure that Zipporah was capable of seeing the angel.</fn></li> | |
− | + | <li>The son's – R. Yosef Kimchi<fn>R"Y Kimhi posits that the son was the one in critical danger, and therefore there would be no reason to touch Moshe's legs.</fn> maintains that "וַתַּגַּע לְרַגְלָיו" describes the act of circumcision itself, with "לְרַגְלָיו" being a euphemism for genitals.<fn>See <multilink><a href="ChizkuniShemot4-24" data-aht="source">Chizkuni</a><a href="ChizkuniShemot4-24" data-aht="source">Shemot 4:25</a><a href="Chizkuni" data-aht="parshan">About R. Chizkiyah b. Manoach</a></multilink> who cites a similar interpretation, adding that one needs to reverse the word order of the verse (סירוס המקרא) and read it as if it said "ותקח צפרה צר ותגע לרגליו ותכרת את ערלת בנה".</fn></li> | |
− | + | </ul></point> | |
<point><b>"חֲתַן דָּמִים / לַמּוּלֹת"</b> – According to Rashbam, Zipporah meant that Moshe was saved because of the circumcision. Tzeror HaMor, though, maintains that Moshe was not there and thus understands the "חֲתַן" to be the son with whom Zipporah was playing.</point> | <point><b>"חֲתַן דָּמִים / לַמּוּלֹת"</b> – According to Rashbam, Zipporah meant that Moshe was saved because of the circumcision. Tzeror HaMor, though, maintains that Moshe was not there and thus understands the "חֲתַן" to be the son with whom Zipporah was playing.</point> | ||
− | <point><b> | + | <point><b>הקשר</b> – R. Yosef Kimchi suggests that verse 23 is integral to our story. Hashem instructs Moshe to command Paroh to let His "son" (The Children of Israel) go and then Hashem turns to Moshe telling him "You have refused to go on my mission to take them out,<fn>According to R"Y Kimchi, one would have expected the verse to read "להוציאו" instead of "לְשַׁלְּחוֹ".</fn> and therefore, I will kill your (Moshe's) firstborn."<fn>Cf. the possibility above that the original Midrashic motif read the second half of this verse similarly. R"Y Kimchi's interpretation is able to avoid the exegetical problem that a warning regarding Paroh's refusal and the Plague of the Firstborn seems premature and out of place.</fn> The words "בִּנְךָ בְּכֹרֶךָ", according to him, refers to Moshe's firstborn son, Gershom. R. Avraham Ibn Daud adopts a similar approach, arguing that the verse was really directed at Paroh, but that it applied to Moshe as well because he had also caused a delay of the nation's redemption from Egypt.</point> |
<point><b>"אַחַר שִׁלּוּחֶיהָ"</b> – According to the Tzeror HaMor, after the circumcision, Zipporah returned with her children to her father's home.<fn>Surprisingly, though, from Rashbam Shemot 18:2 it appears that Zipporah arrived with Moshe in Egypt - see <a href="When Did Zipporah Return to Midyan" data-aht="page">When Did Zipporah Return to Midyan</a>.</fn></point> | <point><b>"אַחַר שִׁלּוּחֶיהָ"</b> – According to the Tzeror HaMor, after the circumcision, Zipporah returned with her children to her father's home.<fn>Surprisingly, though, from Rashbam Shemot 18:2 it appears that Zipporah arrived with Moshe in Egypt - see <a href="When Did Zipporah Return to Midyan" data-aht="page">When Did Zipporah Return to Midyan</a>.</fn></point> | ||
</opinion> | </opinion> | ||
Line 115: | Line 112: | ||
<category name="">טעות בשיפוט ופעולה מתקנת | <category name="">טעות בשיפוט ופעולה מתקנת | ||
<p>משה טעה בכך שתיכנן להביא את משפחתו למצרים, ומילת בנו של משה מנעה את יישומה המלא של תכניתו.</p> | <p>משה טעה בכך שתיכנן להביא את משפחתו למצרים, ומילת בנו של משה מנעה את יישומה המלא של תכניתו.</p> | ||
− | <mekorot><multilink><a href="MidrashManuscript" data-aht="source">Midrash from the Genizah</a><a href="MidrashManuscript" data-aht="source">Genizah (Mann 238a)</a></multilink>, | + | <mekorot><multilink><a href="MidrashManuscript" data-aht="source">Midrash from the Genizah</a><a href="MidrashManuscript" data-aht="source">Genizah (Mann 238a)</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="IbnEzraShemotLong4-20" data-aht="source">Ibn Ezra</a><a href="IbnEzraShemotLong4-20" data-aht="source">Long Commentary Shemot 4:20</a><a href="IbnEzraShemotLong4-23" data-aht="source">Long Commentary Shemot 4:23-26</a><a href="IbnEzraShemotShort4-20" data-aht="source">Short Commentary Shemot 4:20</a><a href="IbnEzraShemotShort4-24" data-aht="source">Short Commentary Shemot 4:24-26</a><a href="R. Avraham ibn Ezra" data-aht="parshan">About R. Avraham ibn Ezra</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="RYKimchi" data-aht="source">R. Yosef Kimchi</a><a href="RYKimchi" data-aht="source">Sefer HaGalui s.v. אז (p.68-69)</a><a href="R. Yosef Kimchi" data-aht="parshan">About R. Yosef Kimchi</a></multilink>,<fn>See above that R"Y Kimchi also blames Moshe for delaying in fulfilling his mission.</fn> <multilink><a href="ShadalShemot4-23" data-aht="source">Shadal</a><a href="ShadalShemot4-23" data-aht="source">Shemot 4:23-26</a><a href="Shadal" data-aht="parshan">About R. S.D. Luzzatto</a></multilink></mekorot> |
− | <multilink><a href="IbnEzraShemotLong4-20" data-aht="source">Ibn Ezra</a><a href="IbnEzraShemotLong4-20" data-aht="source">Long Commentary Shemot 4:20</a><a href="IbnEzraShemotLong4-23" data-aht="source">Long Commentary Shemot 4:23-26</a><a href="IbnEzraShemotShort4-20" data-aht="source">Short Commentary Shemot 4:20</a><a href="IbnEzraShemotShort4-24" data-aht="source">Short Commentary Shemot 4:24-26</a><a href="R. Avraham ibn Ezra" data-aht="parshan">About R. Avraham ibn Ezra</a></multilink>, | + | <point><b>טעותו של משה</b> – These exegetes suggest two possible negative consequences that would have resulted had Moshe's wife and children arrived in Egypt: |
− | <multilink><a href="RYKimchi" data-aht="source">R. Yosef Kimchi</a><a href="RYKimchi" data-aht="source">Sefer HaGalui s.v. אז (p.68-69)</a><a href="R. Yosef Kimchi" data-aht="parshan">About R. Yosef Kimchi</a></multilink>,<fn>See above that R"Y Kimchi also blames Moshe for delaying in fulfilling his mission.</fn> | ||
− | <multilink><a href="ShadalShemot4-23" data-aht="source">Shadal</a><a href="ShadalShemot4-23" data-aht="source">Shemot 4:23-26</a><a href="Shadal" data-aht="parshan">About R. S.D. Luzzatto</a></multilink></mekorot> | ||
− | <point><b> | ||
<ul> | <ul> | ||
<li>Ibn Ezra<fn>Ibn Ezra points out that one should not be surprised that Moshe erred, for even prophets can make mistakes. Ibn Ezra cites the example of Natan. For elaboration, see <a href="PHI$">Prophets</a> and <a href="Moshe" data-aht="page">Moshe's Character</a>.</fn> and R. Yosef Kimchi<fn>R"Y Kimchi says that Moshe brought his family because he himself thought that the Exodus was far off.</fn> suggest that it could have demoralized the Israelites in Egypt<fn>See <multilink><a href="RambanShemot4-19" data-aht="source">Ramban</a><a href="RambanShemot4-19" data-aht="source">Shemot 4:19</a><a href="Ramban" data-aht="parshan">About R. Moshe Nachmanides</a></multilink> and Ibn Kaspi below who argue against this position, suggesting that Moshe bringing his family actually boosted the nation's morale by demonstrating confidence that the Exodus was on the horizon. Ramban Shemot 5:22 further suggests that Zipporah returned to Midyan only when it became clear that the Exodus would not happen immediately.</fn> by causing them to believe that Moshe was merely coming to live with his family in Egypt and that the redemption was not imminent.<fn>These commentators apparently maintain that the Exodus happened soon after this episode. For further discussion, see <a href="SHE$">Chronology of Shemot 5-7</a>.</fn></li> | <li>Ibn Ezra<fn>Ibn Ezra points out that one should not be surprised that Moshe erred, for even prophets can make mistakes. Ibn Ezra cites the example of Natan. For elaboration, see <a href="PHI$">Prophets</a> and <a href="Moshe" data-aht="page">Moshe's Character</a>.</fn> and R. Yosef Kimchi<fn>R"Y Kimchi says that Moshe brought his family because he himself thought that the Exodus was far off.</fn> suggest that it could have demoralized the Israelites in Egypt<fn>See <multilink><a href="RambanShemot4-19" data-aht="source">Ramban</a><a href="RambanShemot4-19" data-aht="source">Shemot 4:19</a><a href="Ramban" data-aht="parshan">About R. Moshe Nachmanides</a></multilink> and Ibn Kaspi below who argue against this position, suggesting that Moshe bringing his family actually boosted the nation's morale by demonstrating confidence that the Exodus was on the horizon. Ramban Shemot 5:22 further suggests that Zipporah returned to Midyan only when it became clear that the Exodus would not happen immediately.</fn> by causing them to believe that Moshe was merely coming to live with his family in Egypt and that the redemption was not imminent.<fn>These commentators apparently maintain that the Exodus happened soon after this episode. For further discussion, see <a href="SHE$">Chronology of Shemot 5-7</a>.</fn></li> | ||
<li>Shadal posits that Hashem was concerned that Zipporah and Gershom would dissuade Moshe from his dangerous mission out of their fears that Paroh would kill him.<fn>Shadal views Zipporah as having a generally harmful influence on Moshe – see <a href="Zipporah" data-aht="page">Zipporah's Character</a>, and see also Shadal's view of Yitro in <a href="Yitro – Religious Identity" data-aht="page">Yitro's Religious Identity</a>.</fn></li> | <li>Shadal posits that Hashem was concerned that Zipporah and Gershom would dissuade Moshe from his dangerous mission out of their fears that Paroh would kill him.<fn>Shadal views Zipporah as having a generally harmful influence on Moshe – see <a href="Zipporah" data-aht="page">Zipporah's Character</a>, and see also Shadal's view of Yitro in <a href="Yitro – Religious Identity" data-aht="page">Yitro's Religious Identity</a>.</fn></li> | ||
</ul></point> | </ul></point> | ||
− | <point><b> | + | <point><b>תגובה מידתית</b> – Moshe's action was more of a miscalculation than an actual sin, and Hashem's reaction was intended more as a corrective warning than as a punishment.</point> |
− | <point><b> | + | <point><b>מילה היא הפתרון</b> – Ibn Ezra and Shadal explain that by reminding Moshe of the need to circumcise his son,<fn>Ibn Ezra says that Hashem informed Moshe that He preferred him to circumcise his son and leave him with Zipporah to recuperate rather than taking them to Egypt and postponing the commandment of circumcision.</fn> Hashem arranged that Zipporah would need to stay behind with the children and not accompany Moshe to Egypt.</point> |
<point><b>"וַיִּפְגְּשֵׁהוּ ה'‏"</b> – Ibn Ezra says that Hashem sent an angel.<fn>He cites the case of Shemot 13:21 and 14:19 to show the interchangeable use of "ה'‏" and "מלאך". See <a href="DIC$">‏ה'‏</a>.</fn> According to Shadal, however, this merely indicates that Hashem brought an illness.</point> | <point><b>"וַיִּפְגְּשֵׁהוּ ה'‏"</b> – Ibn Ezra says that Hashem sent an angel.<fn>He cites the case of Shemot 13:21 and 14:19 to show the interchangeable use of "ה'‏" and "מלאך". See <a href="DIC$">‏ה'‏</a>.</fn> According to Shadal, however, this merely indicates that Hashem brought an illness.</point> | ||
− | <point><b>"וַיְבַקֵּשׁ הֲמִיתוֹ" – | + | <point><b>"וַיְבַקֵּשׁ הֲמִיתוֹ" – מי כמעט מת?</b> Ibn Ezra says that it must have been Moshe, as otherwise he would have performed the circumcision. He further argues that if the son were sick, one would not circumcise him as doing so would increase the pain and danger. However, R. Yosef Kimchi and Shadal claim that it was Moshe's son Gershom who became ill.<fn>See above that R. Yosef Kimchi interprets the verse "הִנֵּה אָנֹכִי הֹרֵג אֶת בִּנְךָ בְּכֹרֶךָ" as Hashem speaking to Moshe. Shadal, while understanding that the verse refers to Paroh's firstborn, suggests that Moshe was made to understand that a similar fate could befall him if he didn't carry out Hashem's mission. According to Ibn Ezra, though, this verse is unconnected to the events at the inn.</fn></point> |
− | <point><b> | + | <point><b>איזה בן לא נימול ומדוע לא?</b> Ibn Ezra assumes that Eliezer was the uncircumcised son, having just been born. R. Yosef Kimchi, though, combines this approach with the Midrash above, suggesting that a deal was made with Zipporah and her family not to circumcise Gershom. Shadal holds the somewhat incongruous position that although Gershom was the son whose life was in danger, Eliezer was the uncircumcised one.<fn>According to Shadal, Moshe had been convinced by Zipporah to wait until Eliezer was thirteen, like the practice of the Midianites.</fn></point> |
− | <point><b> | + | <point><b>מדוע ציפורה ולא משה?</b> Ibn Ezra maintains that Moshe was incapacitated by illness, while R"Y Kimchi and Shadal says that Zipporah was correcting her mistake of not previously allowing this son to be circumcised.</point> |
− | <point><b> | + | <point><b>איך ציפורה ידעה מהו הפתרון?</b> Ibn Ezra, R"Y Kimchi, and Shadal all explain that Moshe told her that the circumcision would remedy the situation.</point> |
− | <point><b>"וַתַּגַּע לְרַגְלָיו" – | + | <point><b>"וַתַּגַּע לְרַגְלָיו" – רגליו של מי?</b> Ibn Ezra says that Zipporah dabbed the blood on Moshe's legs as a protective charm, similar to the role played by the Paschal blood on the doorposts in Shemot 12.<fn>Cf. <multilink><a href="LekachTovShemot4-25" data-aht="source">Lekach Tov</a><a href="LekachTovShemot4-25" data-aht="source">Shemot 4:25</a><a href="Lekach Tov" data-aht="parshan">About R. Toviah b. Eliezer</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="ChizkuniShemot4-24" data-aht="source">Chizkuni</a><a href="ChizkuniShemot4-24" data-aht="source">Shemot 4:25</a><a href="Chizkuni" data-aht="parshan">About R. Chizkiyah b. Manoach</a></multilink>, and Ibn Kaspi below.</fn> Shadal also says that it was Moshe's legs.<fn>According to Shadal, though, Moshe was not the one in danger.</fn></point> |
<point><b>"חֲתַן דָּמִים / לַמּוּלֹת"</b> – Ibn Ezra says that newly circumcised babies are referred to as a "חֲתַן". In contrast, Shadal explains that the "חֲתַן" is Moshe.</point> | <point><b>"חֲתַן דָּמִים / לַמּוּלֹת"</b> – Ibn Ezra says that newly circumcised babies are referred to as a "חֲתַן". In contrast, Shadal explains that the "חֲתַן" is Moshe.</point> | ||
<point><b>"אַחַר שִׁלּוּחֶיהָ"</b> – According to Ibn Ezra and Shadal, Zipporah returns to Midyan after this episode.<fn>Ibn Ezra supports this read by pointing to the singular form of "וַיָּשָׁב" in Shemot 4:20. For more, see <a href="When Did Zipporah Return to Midyan" data-aht="page">When Did Zipporah Return to Midyan</a>.</fn></point> | <point><b>"אַחַר שִׁלּוּחֶיהָ"</b> – According to Ibn Ezra and Shadal, Zipporah returns to Midyan after this episode.<fn>Ibn Ezra supports this read by pointing to the singular form of "וַיָּשָׁב" in Shemot 4:20. For more, see <a href="When Did Zipporah Return to Midyan" data-aht="page">When Did Zipporah Return to Midyan</a>.</fn></point> | ||
Line 140: | Line 134: | ||
<p>החרדה של משה ממחויבותו להתעמת עם פרעה ולהתרות בו על מותו המתקרב של בנו גרמה למשה עצמו לחלות אנושות.</p> | <p>החרדה של משה ממחויבותו להתעמת עם פרעה ולהתרות בו על מותו המתקרב של בנו גרמה למשה עצמו לחלות אנושות.</p> | ||
<mekorot><multilink><a href="KaspiShemot4-20" data-aht="source">R. Yosef ibn Kaspi</a><a href="KaspiShemot4-20" data-aht="source">Shemot 4:20-26</a><a href="R. Yosef ibn Kaspi" data-aht="parshan">About R. Yosef ibn Kaspi</a></multilink></mekorot> | <mekorot><multilink><a href="KaspiShemot4-20" data-aht="source">R. Yosef ibn Kaspi</a><a href="KaspiShemot4-20" data-aht="source">Shemot 4:20-26</a><a href="R. Yosef ibn Kaspi" data-aht="parshan">About R. Yosef ibn Kaspi</a></multilink></mekorot> | ||
− | <point><b> | + | <point><b>הקשר</b> – The context is integrally connected to our story. Hashem's charge to Moshe to speak to Paroh which appears in these verses are what leads to Moshe's fear and sickness.</point> |
<point><b>"וַיִּפְגְּשֵׁהוּ ה' וַיְבַקֵּשׁ הֲמִיתוֹ"</b> – This verse needs to be read metaphorically, as according to Ibn Kaspi Hashem was not actively trying to kill Moshe.<fn>Ibn Kaspi (4:26) explains that actions are sometimes attributed to Hashem since Hashem is the ultimate cause of everything ("הפועל הראשון"). For additional cases, see <a href="DIC$">‏ה'‏</a>.</fn></point> | <point><b>"וַיִּפְגְּשֵׁהוּ ה' וַיְבַקֵּשׁ הֲמִיתוֹ"</b> – This verse needs to be read metaphorically, as according to Ibn Kaspi Hashem was not actively trying to kill Moshe.<fn>Ibn Kaspi (4:26) explains that actions are sometimes attributed to Hashem since Hashem is the ultimate cause of everything ("הפועל הראשון"). For additional cases, see <a href="DIC$">‏ה'‏</a>.</fn></point> | ||
− | <point><b> | + | <point><b>מדוע בנו של משה היה ערל?</b> Ibn Kaspi claims that the son was already circumcised,<fn>Ibn Kaspi assumes that Eliezer was more than eight days old (see Shadal who assumes that Zipporah could not be traveling if her son had just been born), and thus Moshe must have previously circumcised him.</fn> and Zipporah was simply drawing more blood. He finds support in the plural form of the word "לַמּוּלֹת" (in the phrase "חֲתַן דָּמִים לַמּוּלֹת"), which suggests that this was a second circumcision.</point> |
− | <point><b> | + | <point><b>הקזת דם הינה הפתרון</b> – Zipporah drew blood (הטפת דם) because of her belief that blood acts as a charm (a סגולה) to calm nerves.<fn>Ibn Kaspi suggests that putting blood on the doorposts on the night of the Plague of the Firstborn was for a similar reason; Hashem wanted to calm the fears of the Children of Israel as they heard the cries of the dying Egyptians. For elaboration, see <a href="Purpose of the Pesach" data-aht="page">Purpose of the Pesach</a>. For more on Ibn Kaspi's position that the Torah sometimes takes the erroneous views of the masses into consideration, see <a href="R. Yosef ibn Kaspi" data-aht="parshan">About R. Yosef ibn Kaspi</a>.</fn></point> |
− | <point><b> | + | <point><b>מדוע ציפורה ולא משה?</b> As Moshe was in a state of high anxiety, Zipporah took the initiative to try to tranquilize him.</point> |
− | <point><b>"וַתַּגַּע לְרַגְלָיו" – | + | <point><b>"וַתַּגַּע לְרַגְלָיו" – רגליו של מי?</b> Ibn Kaspi explains that Zipporah dripped blood onto Moshe's legs either because that was the custom or so Moshe wouldn't see and think that her actions were simply "women's silliness".<fn>For more on Ibn Kaspi's view of women, see <a href="R. Yosef ibn Kaspi" data-aht="parshan">About R. Yosef ibn Kaspi</a>.</fn></point> |
<point><b>"חֲתַן דָּמִים / לַמּוּלֹת"</b> – Zipporah was fearful of losing her husband and so she cried out to him that he is a "חֲתַן דָּמִים" (a bridegroom of blood). When he was saved, she modifies her statement to make it more positive by adding "לַמּוּלֹת".</point> | <point><b>"חֲתַן דָּמִים / לַמּוּלֹת"</b> – Zipporah was fearful of losing her husband and so she cried out to him that he is a "חֲתַן דָּמִים" (a bridegroom of blood). When he was saved, she modifies her statement to make it more positive by adding "לַמּוּלֹת".</point> | ||
<point><b>"אַחַר שִׁלּוּחֶיהָ"</b> – Ibn Kaspi maintains that Zipporah and family arrived with Moshe in Egypt and only returned to Midyan after some time had passed.<fn>It is unclear what led Zipporah to return to Midyan, but Ibn Kaspi suggests that perhaps someone got sick or Zipporah just longed to see her family again. See <a href="When Did Zipporah Return to Midyan" data-aht="page">When Did Zipporah Return to Midyan</a>.</fn> Ibn Kaspi contends that Moshe's bringing of his family to Egypt was done with Divine approval, and gave the Children of Israel a critically needed morale boost, strengthening their confidence in Moshe's leadership and their belief that the redemption was imminent.<fn>Ibn Kaspi is following and expanding on the position developed by <multilink><a href="RambanShemot4-19" data-aht="source">Ramban</a><a href="RambanShemot4-19" data-aht="source">Shemot 4:19</a><a href="Ramban" data-aht="parshan">About R. Moshe Nachmanides</a></multilink>. In contrast, Ibn Ezra and Shadal above argue that this entire episode was aimed at preventing the harmful consequences of Zipporah and her children coming to Egypt. Ralbag charts a middle ground on this issue, concurring with Ramban that Moshe's actions were proper (in Toelet 3 he learns from this story that "והוא שאין ראוי לאדם שיעזוב אשתו ובניו ויפרד מהם, כי הוא ראוי שישגיח בענינם תמיד. ולזה הסכים משה להוליך עמו למצרים אשתו ובניו..."), but maintaining that Hashem was not in favor. | <point><b>"אַחַר שִׁלּוּחֶיהָ"</b> – Ibn Kaspi maintains that Zipporah and family arrived with Moshe in Egypt and only returned to Midyan after some time had passed.<fn>It is unclear what led Zipporah to return to Midyan, but Ibn Kaspi suggests that perhaps someone got sick or Zipporah just longed to see her family again. See <a href="When Did Zipporah Return to Midyan" data-aht="page">When Did Zipporah Return to Midyan</a>.</fn> Ibn Kaspi contends that Moshe's bringing of his family to Egypt was done with Divine approval, and gave the Children of Israel a critically needed morale boost, strengthening their confidence in Moshe's leadership and their belief that the redemption was imminent.<fn>Ibn Kaspi is following and expanding on the position developed by <multilink><a href="RambanShemot4-19" data-aht="source">Ramban</a><a href="RambanShemot4-19" data-aht="source">Shemot 4:19</a><a href="Ramban" data-aht="parshan">About R. Moshe Nachmanides</a></multilink>. In contrast, Ibn Ezra and Shadal above argue that this entire episode was aimed at preventing the harmful consequences of Zipporah and her children coming to Egypt. Ralbag charts a middle ground on this issue, concurring with Ramban that Moshe's actions were proper (in Toelet 3 he learns from this story that "והוא שאין ראוי לאדם שיעזוב אשתו ובניו ויפרד מהם, כי הוא ראוי שישגיח בענינם תמיד. ולזה הסכים משה להוליך עמו למצרים אשתו ובניו..."), but maintaining that Hashem was not in favor. | ||
Line 155: | Line 149: | ||
<point><b>"וַיְהִי בַדֶּרֶךְ בַּמָּלוֹן"</b> – Similar to many of the above approaches, Abarbanel explains that these words identify the preoccupation with lodgings as the cause of the problems which ensued.</point> | <point><b>"וַיְהִי בַדֶּרֶךְ בַּמָּלוֹן"</b> – Similar to many of the above approaches, Abarbanel explains that these words identify the preoccupation with lodgings as the cause of the problems which ensued.</point> | ||
<point><b>"וַיִּפְגְּשֵׁהוּ ה' וַיְבַקֵּשׁ הֲמִיתוֹ"</b> – Abarbanel explains that "וַיִּפְגְּשֵׁהוּ ה'‏" means that prophecy came to Moshe. The words "וַיְבַקֵּשׁ הֲמִיתוֹ" don't mean that Hashem wanted to kill Moshe, but rather that his lack of preparedness for prophecy led him near death.</point> | <point><b>"וַיִּפְגְּשֵׁהוּ ה' וַיְבַקֵּשׁ הֲמִיתוֹ"</b> – Abarbanel explains that "וַיִּפְגְּשֵׁהוּ ה'‏" means that prophecy came to Moshe. The words "וַיְבַקֵּשׁ הֲמִיתוֹ" don't mean that Hashem wanted to kill Moshe, but rather that his lack of preparedness for prophecy led him near death.</point> | ||
− | <point><b> | + | <point><b>מילה היא הפתרון</b> – Zipporah didn't know the cause of Moshe's sickness, but she assumed that it was either because he had not circumcised his son or because he had erred in bringing his family with him to Egypt. She therefore acted to correct both, first by circumcising her son and then by returning to Midyan.<fn>Abarbanel does not explain why the circumcision had any effect if that was not really the cause of Moshe's sickness.</fn></point> |
<point><b>"חֲתַן דָּמִים / לַמּוּלֹת"</b> – Zipporah referred to Moshe as a "חֲתַן דָּמִים" , her almost dead groom. At first she cast blame on herself (לי=בגללי) but when she saw the effects of the circumcision she said that Moshe was a bridegroom of blood "לַמּוּלֹת" due to the circumcision.</point> | <point><b>"חֲתַן דָּמִים / לַמּוּלֹת"</b> – Zipporah referred to Moshe as a "חֲתַן דָּמִים" , her almost dead groom. At first she cast blame on herself (לי=בגללי) but when she saw the effects of the circumcision she said that Moshe was a bridegroom of blood "לַמּוּלֹת" due to the circumcision.</point> | ||
− | <point><b> | + | <point><b>איזה בן לא נימול ומדוע לא?</b> Abarbanel explains that Eliezer was born just before they left to Egypt. As Moshe didn't want to postpone his mission, he left immediately but delayed the circumcision due to the dangers posed by the journey.</point> |
− | <point><b> | + | <point><b>מדוע ציפורה ולא משה?</b> As Moshe was too sick to act, Zipporah took the initiative.</point> |
</opinion> | </opinion> | ||
</category> | </category> |
Version as of 07:03, 25 December 2014
תעלומת סיפור המלון
גישות פרשניות
סקירה
בנסיונותיהם להבין את האירוע במלון, פרשנים מוצאים עצמם במבוכה. מצד אחד, נראה שהפסוק אומר שה' ביקש להמית את משה או את בנו, ומשתמע מכך שנעשה חטא חמור כלשהו. מצד שני, המקרא מכיל מעט מאוד רמזים המעידים על עבירה כזו, ולייחס מעשה נורא למשה היה הופך אותו לבלתי ראוי להיות שליח ה'. הפרשן נותר, אם כן, במלכוד, כאשר ככל שמחפים יותר על פעולותיו של משה, אלה של ה' נראים צודקים פחות, וכן להיפך.אחרים מסתכלים במקום זאת על ההקשר הרחב יותר של סיפורנו, ומציעים שתגובה א-לוהית חמורה כל כך היא כנראה תוצאה של בעיתיות בשליחות הלאומית של משה שגרמה להשלכות הרבה יותר נרחבות. פרשנים אלה צריכים להסביר מדוע ברית המילה שאינה קשורה לכאורה הצליחה להשקיט את רוגזו של ה'. רשב"ם מסביר שמשה התמהמה בביצוע משימתו, וברית המילה היתה קרבן כפרה על כך. ראב"ע רואה את העובדה שמשה צירף את משפחתו למסע, לא כחטא, אלא כטעות טקטית שהיתה עלולה לגרום להורדת מורל העם. תגובת ה' היתה אם כן מכוונת רק לתיקון הטעות הזו ולוודא שהמשפחה נותרה מאחור. לבסוף, אבן כספי מציע שלא היה שום חטא או אפילו טעות מצדו של משה; אלא שחרדתו הגדולה של משה מאימת משימתו גרמה לו לחלות אנושות.
בהערכת פעולותיו של משה ותגובותיו של הקב"ה בפרשה זו, מציעים הפרשנים ספקטרום של גישות. אלה מתחלקות לשלוש קטגוריות מרכזיות:
חטא ועונשו
משה או ציפורה חטאו והיו ראויים לעונש. פרשנים אלה מציעים אפשרויות שונות לגבי אופי ההתנהגות הפסולה:
בן שלא נימול
משה או ציפורה חטאו בכך שלא מלו את אחד מבניהם. המניע הברור לגישה זו היא שהמילה היא מה שמונע את האסון.1 הוריאציות של עמדה זו חולקות ביחס לשאלה מדוע לא התבצעה המילה עד כה:
משה התעכב בגלל המסע
זו אולי הקריאה הפשוטה ביותר של הטקסט מכיוון שהיא דורשת את המספר הקטן ביותר של הנחות נוספות. אולם, היא נתקלת בקשיים בהצדקת חומרת העונש.
ציפורה התעכבה בגלל המסע
משה לא היה נוכח במלון, וציפורה נשאה באחריות מלאה למאורע כולו. גם עמדה זו אינה מסבירה את הצורך בעונש כל כך דרמטי.
ברית עם יתרו שלא למול
כדי שיוכל לשאת את ציפורה, משה ערך הסכם קדם-נישואי הזוי עם יתרו שאחד מבניו "יהיה מיועד לעבודה זרה".
- Midrash Vayosha says that Moshe actually had no intention of keeping his side of the bargain. Thus, as soon as Eliezer was born, he left for Egypt, planning to circumcise the boy there.20
- It is possible that Moshe, having found refuge from Paroh in Yitro's home, had no choice but to accept the conditions set by Yitro or find himself once again on the run.21
- One must also consider the possibility that at this stage of our story, having grown up in Paroh's palace, Moshe's Jewish identity was not fully developed, and he had no qualms about accepting Yitro's request. For more, see Moshe's Character.22
- R. Elazar HaModai notes that the Biblical derivation of Gershom's name ("גֵּר הָיִיתִי בְּאֶרֶץ נָכְרִיָּה") alludes to being "foreign to God."
- R. Elazar HaModai understands "וַיּוֹאֶל מֹשֶׁה לָשֶׁבֶת אֶת הָאִישׁ" in Shemot 2:21 as a language of oath-taking.
- Chazal's identification of the idolatrous priest of Shofetim 18:20 as Moshe's grandson.24
- Gershom – R. Elazar HaModai in the Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan.26 R. Elazar HaModai's choice of Gershom rather than Eliezer appears to be motivated by the Torah's derivations of the two names.27 Additionally, Eliezer has not yet been mentioned explicitly,28 and the context of "בִּנְךָ בְּכֹרֶךָ" may tip the scales toward Gershom.
- Eliezer – Midrash Aggadah and Midrash Vayosha.29 Their choice of Eliezer explains why Moshe was punished only at the inn, and not already at the time of Gershom's birth.30
שליחות שהתעכבה
משה התמהמה בביצוע שליחותו לגאול את בני ישראל. על גישה זו להסביר איך מילת בנו של משה תיקנה את המצב.
- Lodging at the inn36 – Midrash Yelammedenu and Midrash Aggadah (Buber) say that Moshe procrastinated by staying at the inn.37 This approach likely understands "בַּמָּלוֹן" as an actual guest lodge and not just any place where Moshe pitched a tent for the night.38
- Bringing his family with him to Egypt – Rashbam39 and the Tzeror HaMor suggest that Moshe taking his family caused unnecessary delay.40
- According to Rashbam, the circumcision functioned as some form of sacrifice42 to appease the angel who was trying to kill Moshe.43
- R. Avraham Ibn Daud says that the drawing of blood can have an astrological influence and save people who are in life threatening danger.44
- The Tzeror HaMor, on the other hand, maintains that Moshe rectified his mistake by hurrying off to Egypt and leaving Zipporah with their sons at the inn.45 The account of the circumcision, according to him, is wholly unconnected to either the sin or punishment.46
- Alternatively, Moshe's procrastination was a sign of his lack of identity with his Jewish brothers; performing the circumcision actively showed his connection to his people.47
טעות בשיפוט ופעולה מתקנת
משה טעה בכך שתיכנן להביא את משפחתו למצרים, ומילת בנו של משה מנעה את יישומה המלא של תכניתו.
- Ibn Ezra60 and R. Yosef Kimchi61 suggest that it could have demoralized the Israelites in Egypt62 by causing them to believe that Moshe was merely coming to live with his family in Egypt and that the redemption was not imminent.63
- Shadal posits that Hashem was concerned that Zipporah and Gershom would dissuade Moshe from his dangerous mission out of their fears that Paroh would kill him.64
השלכות טבעיות
לא היה חטא או עונש. חווית סף המוות היתה פשוט תוצאה טבעית של הנסיבות בהם מצא משה את עצמו.
חרדה
החרדה של משה ממחויבותו להתעמת עם פרעה ולהתרות בו על מותו המתקרב של בנו גרמה למשה עצמו לחלות אנושות.
לא מוכן לנבואה
מכיוון שמשה היה טרוד בסידורי לינה ובמשפחתו, הוא לא היה במצב מתאים כאשר הרוח הנבואית האלוקית באה עליו, וזה גרם לחוויה הקרובה למוות.